Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:12:45PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote
> On 08/20/2013 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > My question is, how can we improve our stabilization
> > procedures/policies so we can convince people not to run production
> > servers on ~arch and keep the stable tree more up to date?
>
> Just delete /etc/conf.d/net with an ~arch update every once in a while,
> that should convince them =)
>
> Stable is fine for the most part. The bitrot complaint is basically "I
> can't be bothered to add packages to
> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords individually."

  What he said.

> Most of our servers have one or two packages in there, for which I've
> already filed a stabilization bug.

  From a regular user POV, I occasionally have one or 2 packages that I
keyword, because I want their specific feature; e.g. a ~ version of UFRAW
that will read the RAW format from my new camera, which stable won't.

  I can see giving up on vanilla-sources kernels.  See
http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/newsitem-Kernel-Team-vanilla-sources-policy-td266519.html
Executive summary... the releases are so fast+furious, that keeping up
with stabilization is not possible, so it'll always be ~.

> It sucks, but it's still better than running ~arch. Problems like this
> should be fixed, but if you decide it's easier to
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" than deal with the exceptions, you're asking for
> trouble.

  Wise words.  That level of laziness *ON A PRODUCTION SERVER* is
unacceptable.

  Are there any other packages that get updated as often as vanilla
sources?  Maybe they should be considered for a similar policy.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications